Wikipedia:Attempting to overturn recent consensus

Sometimes, a proposal is repeatedly made, each instance of the proposal differing only in non-essential detail, without success. An article may be repeatedly nominated for deletion, renaming, or merging, each time seeing the proposal fail to achieve consensus, and the original article persists essentially unchanged. A policy may be proposed to be altered, but repeatedly discussions fail to find a consensus to move from the status quo.

The initiation of a new discussion, a relatively short time after the closure of a previous discussion on the same topic is problematic. What constitutes "a short time after" may vary depending on the circumstances. A discussion yielding a solid consensus for an outcome should be given a wider berth than a discussion yielding a narrow consensus or resulting in an absence of consensus. A discussion of greater impact to the encyclopedia, such as whether to change a policy affecting a large number of articles, should be given a wider berth than a discussion about whether to keep or delete a specific article, or whether to include or remove a particular paragraph or assertion from a specific article. This applies where the new discussion seeking effectively the same outcome is raised in a different forum; an attempt to revisit the outcome of a specific discussion through a change of forum after a brief passage of time may merely be forum shopping.

Initiating a new discussion within a certain period of time after the closure of the most recent discussion addressing an issue may be perceived as beating a dead horse, and the better course of action may be to let it be.

Consensus can change, but this change usually requires sufficient time to allow for new evidence and argument to emerge. There is no deadline, and if or when these changes occur, a new discussion can be opened in good time.

In some cases, a proposal fails because it runs counter to existing policy. It is not considered problematic to follow up that discussion, immediately or at some later time, with a proposal to change that policy itself. Even where the change in the policy would bring about the results of the original proposal.

Furthermore, it is not considered problematic to initiate a new discussion on the original proposal immediately after a change in the policy that caused the original proposal to fail.

For example:

1. An article on a minor athlete is nominated for deletion. The proposal fails because opposers find that the athlete barely meets the notability requirements set forth for athletes in that particular sport.
2. It is permissible for the editor who proposed the deletion of the article (or any other editor) to propose to change the policy in order to tighten the notability requirements for athletes in that sport.
3. If the policy is changed, it is then permissible for the editor who proposed the deletion of the article (or any other editor) to propose to delete the original article under the new policy.

It is also not problematic to revisit an individual proposal that originated as one element of a failed larger proposal, if that individual proposal was not clearly addressed in the response to the larger proposal.

For example:

1. A group of twenty articles are proposed to be renamed to new titles. The proposal fails because opposers find that many (but not all) of the nominated articles are already at the titles most consistent with policy.
2. It is permissible for the editor who proposed the mass renaming (or any other editor) to propose to rename a specific one of those twenty articles on the basis that it has title issues that differ from the other articles with which it was originally proposed to be renamed.